![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
khaosworksLawrence Miles is a writer who is, simultaneously, one of the most praised by Doctor Who fandom and one of the most vilified by Doctor Who fandom. He's always been a controversial figure, and I have a feeling that he likes it that way. In the interregnum between the end of the classic series and the start of the new one (I use the terms "classic" and "new" in protest, but it's a shorthand people understand... and I digress) Miles wrote such great Doctor Who novels such as Alien Bodies, Interference and The Adventuress of Henrietta Street , and essentially came up with the entire Time War arc that echoed its way through the Eighth Doctor Adventures books long before the television series had its own Time War stuck in the backstory. He stopped writing for the novels under circumstances that have not been quite made clear, but there's some bad blood somewhere between him and other prominent figures in Doctor Who fandom.
Miles has, over the last four years, written his own views on the new series on his blog, and oftentimes, he has been painted as someone who vehemently hates what Russell T. Davies is doing with it, calling it imaginatively bankrupt, or — at worst — espousing abhorrent political subtexts (such as an anti-immigration stance in The Unquiet Dead). This is a gross oversimplification, and ultimately a disservice to Miles; he has praised the new series as much as he has derided it, but because of his reputation as "Mad Larry", it's the negative reviews that get the attention. Also, because he has no hesitation in slagging off writers for the new show like Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat, the impression among many is that he's an embittered old sod who is being mean spirited because he didn't get asked to write for the show.
I don't think this is the case, myself, although Miles certainly comes off that way sometimes, but more on this later.
Because Miles's views are complex, it's also hard to try to summarize them, but at the end of the day, I think it boils down to this: Miles thinks that Doctor Who, at its best, is surprising. That it pulls the rug from under the viewing audience, that it challenges them to think in different ways, that it subverts genres, clichés, or is just plain weird and scary. And he isn't seeing that at all in Series 4 so far.
Go read his latest essay, on The Poison Sky and have a good chew. Then come back.
Now, I enjoyed The Sontaran Stratagem and The Poison Sky. It had a whole load of crowd pleasers, especially for people like me who are fans of the classic series. UNIT was back, there was references to the Brigadier, the Sontarans, the Rutans, the probic vent, big gunfights, the Valiant, Martha, Donna and so on. But amid the vitriol, Miles does have a point: this was, in the end, Doctor Who by the numbers. It was much better than Helen Raynor's first two-parter last year, the disastrously banal Daleks in Manhattan and Evolution of the Daleks, but in the end, it was formulaic.
The questions are, really, is why I found it formulaic, is formulaic necessarily bad and, is formulaic by definition incapable of surprising us? Now, I've only been a fan since 1992 or thereabouts, but in my own obsessive-compulsive manner, I've seen pretty much every piece of surviving footage of the series from 1963 on, every single on-screen story in one form or another, plus a sizeable chunk of the novels, comics and audio plays. And I'm not alone in this: there are fans who have been around much longer than I have and have absorbed every bit of minutiae, watched stories multiple times and so on. So the problem with us is, we know the formula. We even give names to the categories: Base Under Siege, UNIT vs. Aliens, Historical, Psuedo-historical, and so on. So naturally, if we're looking to be surprised, it's damned hard to surprise us at all. We can look at any given situation and go, "Okay, this is how it's going to be solved," or "This is what's happening next." And naturally, if we're not surprised, we might honestly get bored. What we forget is that there is a brand new audience that has never watched any of the classic series, a bunch of eight-to-twelve-year-olds who are hearing this music and watching this for the very first time. And for them, this is new. They've never seen UNIT in action before. They've never had the real pleasure of having the series be self-referential ("Are you my mummy?") before, and I have to say, I was quite happily surprised then when they brought in the Valiant, because I honestly wasn't expecting that.
What I suspect that a lot of kiddies who watch the two-parter will be, other than just thrilled by the action, is curious about UNIT, about the Doctor's past, wondering who the Rutans are, what the Sontarans did before, who this Brigadier Sir Alastair is, and if it leads them back to those classic stories and it turns out they enjoy them, I'll be just as thrilled. And that is the thing that justifies those fanwanky continuity callbacks. They'll get "Are you my mummy?" because that's in their recent memory, and that will prime them to the idea that the show is not one to forget its own history. It's not just a throwaway line; it's neurolinguistic programming. At least, I hope it is. I may be giving them too much credit.
But stay with me, here. Formulaic is in the eye of the beholder, so the fact that we can compare this two-parter to the classic UNIT stories of times past is not a bad thing, because we're introducing a brand new generation to them. In a way, I'm exhorting people to try to approach these episodes with eight-year-old eyes. Not that Doctor Who is solely for the kiddies, or that it's incapable of being relevant to adults or even working on multiple levels, but that as entertainment, it's assuming that people have never seen the show before 2005. Which is a bit of a shame, but not a crime against nature, considering that it was gone for 16 years. Yes, it never really went away, but the bits that we kept alive were witnessed by a far smaller audience than the millions that tune in each week now. I would adore having more acknowledgment of the past, but I have to concede that that kind of obsession was what killed the series near the end of its original run.
Now, I was surprised by the Valiant's appearance, but I don't think that's what Miles is talking about when he bemoans the lack of surprise. What I think he means is that he wants it challenging, like having a mind-bender of a time travel story like Blink or the surrealism of juxtaposing the 51st century and 18th century France in The Girl in the Fireplace (although he had his own problems with those stories - to his mind, even they are only adequate). Personally, I'd be quite pleased if we had episodes on the par of those every time. On the other hand, if we had stories like those every week, would the ratings stand up? Sometimes, we need the crowd-pleasers to set ourselves up for the exceptional. Miles seems to want stuff like that every single week, and in fact, he wants even crazier stuff. And once again, a lot of us are approaching it from the point of view of a fan who's seen everything and begging for more stuff. Not that the format is incapable of it — we know it's capable. But as I said above, we're not the only people watching.
That all being said, let's look at the context of the new series, from 2005 on. Is it, even given its own context, becoming formulaic? There's a good argument that is actually is. Companion introduction story. Check. Historical story. Check. Future story. Check. Two-part alien invasion. Check. If this holds true to form, then there'll be two standalone stories followed by the epic two-parter that will propel the series onto its second half; another standalone, then baddie/big threat introduced in third last episode and the two-part finale. Essentially, Series 4 is identical in structure to Series 3, and almost the same as Series 2 (with minor departures).
We know what's coming — oh, not the specifics to be sure, but we know which episodes we can safely ignore and which ones will be significant. And Russell T Davies, bless him, is getting smarmier by the year, with each episode of Doctor Who Confidential becoming more embarrassing to watch as he continually pats himself on the back with all the "emotional" content (the production "making-of" segments are still cool, though). Yeah, we like Donna, but sometimes the programme is crossing from character development to outright manipulation, even for a sentimental sap like myself. And I'm concerned that the creative taps are running out where RTD & Co. is concerned, to the point where the only plot twists that are truly surprising are not because they're surprising in nature but because we're surprised anyone would actually try to pull that, like Doctor Christ in Last of the Time Lords and the Flash Gordon ending to that episode.
There's a distinction between crowd-pleasing, safe entertainment, or nostalgic kisses to the past, or introducing old-style Who to a new audience, and just plain repetition. And suddenly I'm glad next year we're taking a break, and that Davies will be gone after, because Lord knows a new hand needs to take control (and please let it be Moffat). Because the show is getting predictable and cozy, and even in its darkest days (think The Horns of Nimon) the series was never predictable and cozy (and I'll take on anyone to prove that). Unlike Miles, I don't think that the situation is all that dire yet, but I can see it going there very soon if things aren't shaken up.
But yes, I can see things coming, and that was never a real issue with the classic series. They can throw us bones like the Brig, or sly references to the novels (the Butler Institute from the New Adventures was apparently in the background in the New York shot in The Poison Sky), but while that makes us squee, I want more than that. I want to feel like I've been whacked around the head by a baseball bat. Uh, metaphorically, of course, and I wouldn't want craziness every single week, but please sir, I want some more, and I don't want to get the feeling that the show is coasting. Right now, the first few episodes of Series 4 have been so similarly paced that I'm counting down to when I next get to see Donna cry. And honestly, following Series 3's structure is not a good idea because the first half of Series 3 bored the crap out of me.
So, Doctor Who. Still entertaining, but (if not actually jumping the shark) climbing up the ramp preparing to jump. And that doesn't bode well. Episodes like Gridlock, like Blink, like Human Nature and The Family of Blood, show that the series is capable of a lot when it sets its mind to it. And it really isn't right now. It's what's stopping the series from being elevated from Quite Good to, well, Classic.
Miles has, over the last four years, written his own views on the new series on his blog, and oftentimes, he has been painted as someone who vehemently hates what Russell T. Davies is doing with it, calling it imaginatively bankrupt, or — at worst — espousing abhorrent political subtexts (such as an anti-immigration stance in The Unquiet Dead). This is a gross oversimplification, and ultimately a disservice to Miles; he has praised the new series as much as he has derided it, but because of his reputation as "Mad Larry", it's the negative reviews that get the attention. Also, because he has no hesitation in slagging off writers for the new show like Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat, the impression among many is that he's an embittered old sod who is being mean spirited because he didn't get asked to write for the show.
I don't think this is the case, myself, although Miles certainly comes off that way sometimes, but more on this later.
Because Miles's views are complex, it's also hard to try to summarize them, but at the end of the day, I think it boils down to this: Miles thinks that Doctor Who, at its best, is surprising. That it pulls the rug from under the viewing audience, that it challenges them to think in different ways, that it subverts genres, clichés, or is just plain weird and scary. And he isn't seeing that at all in Series 4 so far.
Go read his latest essay, on The Poison Sky and have a good chew. Then come back.
Now, I enjoyed The Sontaran Stratagem and The Poison Sky. It had a whole load of crowd pleasers, especially for people like me who are fans of the classic series. UNIT was back, there was references to the Brigadier, the Sontarans, the Rutans, the probic vent, big gunfights, the Valiant, Martha, Donna and so on. But amid the vitriol, Miles does have a point: this was, in the end, Doctor Who by the numbers. It was much better than Helen Raynor's first two-parter last year, the disastrously banal Daleks in Manhattan and Evolution of the Daleks, but in the end, it was formulaic.
The questions are, really, is why I found it formulaic, is formulaic necessarily bad and, is formulaic by definition incapable of surprising us? Now, I've only been a fan since 1992 or thereabouts, but in my own obsessive-compulsive manner, I've seen pretty much every piece of surviving footage of the series from 1963 on, every single on-screen story in one form or another, plus a sizeable chunk of the novels, comics and audio plays. And I'm not alone in this: there are fans who have been around much longer than I have and have absorbed every bit of minutiae, watched stories multiple times and so on. So the problem with us is, we know the formula. We even give names to the categories: Base Under Siege, UNIT vs. Aliens, Historical, Psuedo-historical, and so on. So naturally, if we're looking to be surprised, it's damned hard to surprise us at all. We can look at any given situation and go, "Okay, this is how it's going to be solved," or "This is what's happening next." And naturally, if we're not surprised, we might honestly get bored. What we forget is that there is a brand new audience that has never watched any of the classic series, a bunch of eight-to-twelve-year-olds who are hearing this music and watching this for the very first time. And for them, this is new. They've never seen UNIT in action before. They've never had the real pleasure of having the series be self-referential ("Are you my mummy?") before, and I have to say, I was quite happily surprised then when they brought in the Valiant, because I honestly wasn't expecting that.
What I suspect that a lot of kiddies who watch the two-parter will be, other than just thrilled by the action, is curious about UNIT, about the Doctor's past, wondering who the Rutans are, what the Sontarans did before, who this Brigadier Sir Alastair is, and if it leads them back to those classic stories and it turns out they enjoy them, I'll be just as thrilled. And that is the thing that justifies those fanwanky continuity callbacks. They'll get "Are you my mummy?" because that's in their recent memory, and that will prime them to the idea that the show is not one to forget its own history. It's not just a throwaway line; it's neurolinguistic programming. At least, I hope it is. I may be giving them too much credit.
But stay with me, here. Formulaic is in the eye of the beholder, so the fact that we can compare this two-parter to the classic UNIT stories of times past is not a bad thing, because we're introducing a brand new generation to them. In a way, I'm exhorting people to try to approach these episodes with eight-year-old eyes. Not that Doctor Who is solely for the kiddies, or that it's incapable of being relevant to adults or even working on multiple levels, but that as entertainment, it's assuming that people have never seen the show before 2005. Which is a bit of a shame, but not a crime against nature, considering that it was gone for 16 years. Yes, it never really went away, but the bits that we kept alive were witnessed by a far smaller audience than the millions that tune in each week now. I would adore having more acknowledgment of the past, but I have to concede that that kind of obsession was what killed the series near the end of its original run.
Now, I was surprised by the Valiant's appearance, but I don't think that's what Miles is talking about when he bemoans the lack of surprise. What I think he means is that he wants it challenging, like having a mind-bender of a time travel story like Blink or the surrealism of juxtaposing the 51st century and 18th century France in The Girl in the Fireplace (although he had his own problems with those stories - to his mind, even they are only adequate). Personally, I'd be quite pleased if we had episodes on the par of those every time. On the other hand, if we had stories like those every week, would the ratings stand up? Sometimes, we need the crowd-pleasers to set ourselves up for the exceptional. Miles seems to want stuff like that every single week, and in fact, he wants even crazier stuff. And once again, a lot of us are approaching it from the point of view of a fan who's seen everything and begging for more stuff. Not that the format is incapable of it — we know it's capable. But as I said above, we're not the only people watching.
That all being said, let's look at the context of the new series, from 2005 on. Is it, even given its own context, becoming formulaic? There's a good argument that is actually is. Companion introduction story. Check. Historical story. Check. Future story. Check. Two-part alien invasion. Check. If this holds true to form, then there'll be two standalone stories followed by the epic two-parter that will propel the series onto its second half; another standalone, then baddie/big threat introduced in third last episode and the two-part finale. Essentially, Series 4 is identical in structure to Series 3, and almost the same as Series 2 (with minor departures).
We know what's coming — oh, not the specifics to be sure, but we know which episodes we can safely ignore and which ones will be significant. And Russell T Davies, bless him, is getting smarmier by the year, with each episode of Doctor Who Confidential becoming more embarrassing to watch as he continually pats himself on the back with all the "emotional" content (the production "making-of" segments are still cool, though). Yeah, we like Donna, but sometimes the programme is crossing from character development to outright manipulation, even for a sentimental sap like myself. And I'm concerned that the creative taps are running out where RTD & Co. is concerned, to the point where the only plot twists that are truly surprising are not because they're surprising in nature but because we're surprised anyone would actually try to pull that, like Doctor Christ in Last of the Time Lords and the Flash Gordon ending to that episode.
There's a distinction between crowd-pleasing, safe entertainment, or nostalgic kisses to the past, or introducing old-style Who to a new audience, and just plain repetition. And suddenly I'm glad next year we're taking a break, and that Davies will be gone after, because Lord knows a new hand needs to take control (and please let it be Moffat). Because the show is getting predictable and cozy, and even in its darkest days (think The Horns of Nimon) the series was never predictable and cozy (and I'll take on anyone to prove that). Unlike Miles, I don't think that the situation is all that dire yet, but I can see it going there very soon if things aren't shaken up.
But yes, I can see things coming, and that was never a real issue with the classic series. They can throw us bones like the Brig, or sly references to the novels (the Butler Institute from the New Adventures was apparently in the background in the New York shot in The Poison Sky), but while that makes us squee, I want more than that. I want to feel like I've been whacked around the head by a baseball bat. Uh, metaphorically, of course, and I wouldn't want craziness every single week, but please sir, I want some more, and I don't want to get the feeling that the show is coasting. Right now, the first few episodes of Series 4 have been so similarly paced that I'm counting down to when I next get to see Donna cry. And honestly, following Series 3's structure is not a good idea because the first half of Series 3 bored the crap out of me.
So, Doctor Who. Still entertaining, but (if not actually jumping the shark) climbing up the ramp preparing to jump. And that doesn't bode well. Episodes like Gridlock, like Blink, like Human Nature and The Family of Blood, show that the series is capable of a lot when it sets its mind to it. And it really isn't right now. It's what's stopping the series from being elevated from Quite Good to, well, Classic.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 10:41 am (UTC)In saying that realWho set out to be surprising and nuWho doesn't, he's both generalising massively and ignoring a fundamental difference between telly then and now. Thomas Love Peacock has a landscape gardener in one of his novels bragging about the "quality of unexpectedness" in his designs, and another character says "pray, Sir, what do you call this quality when a person walks around the garden for the second time?" nuWho can't afford to rely on being surprising, because that's a once-only trick, and telly is no longer once-only, and never will be again. They're writing for repeated viewings, and nothing gets old faster than a surprise, which is why they parcel them out by the series now rather than by the episode.
I'd also disagree about what killed realWho. It's notably RTD who blames it on the obsession with continuity, but if you look at the last few seasons there's very little of that about. I think what killed it included, but was not limited to, lazy writing, celebrity casting and a belief that effects could cover up plot holes. (Hmm, that sounds familiar...) And, of course, the fact that it was cordially disliked at the BBC.
I'm going to go and reread that piece now.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 11:25 am (UTC)The very last story of Season 26 was another callback, given the presence of the Master, and the thematic thrust of Survival was overwhelmed by his presence. Yes, Michael Grade hated it, and that certainly contributed to Who's demise, but by that time, the show had become almost self-parody and people just didn't care anymore. But this is an interpretation of history, and I'd be glad to disagree.
I'd also note that I emphasize that what Miles is saying is not surprising as in "cor, never saw that coming" but challenging... the latter rewards repeated viewings, the former doesn't.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 10:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 10:59 pm (UTC)And...
(I always think of the latter definition though.)
no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 11:04 pm (UTC)*rereads sentence* where has this meme come from that says all American sf is po-faced? It's completely untrue, and everyone repeats it
*blinks* Really? I mean, this is really a belief going around?
no subject
Date: 2008-06-23 09:07 am (UTC)Personally I have enjoyed very much the little touches of humour in just about every sf/fantasy drama series that has come out of the North American continent. I sometimes wonder what all these other people are watching.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 02:27 pm (UTC)Nice post, you give your perspectives awesomely. As for me, I personally love Season 4. Like, intensely. I'd actually like to hear your opinions on the upcoming 'The Doctor's Daughter' episode. What do you think about that?
BTW, if you have no idea who this is, it's Indiana. We met at the Singapore Writer's Fest last year, and I used to see you more often when the comics mart was at Cinileisure. Then it closed down. *sigh* good times.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 02:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 06:01 pm (UTC)So, last but two of the Time Lords now, then. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 09:08 pm (UTC)I for one am hoping (and expecting) the truth about "the Doctor's daughter" to be something "surprising", in at least the "never saw that coming" sense. (I can think of at least two ways it could be so, and I'm cheerfully anticipating it being neither of those. =:o} )
no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 09:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 11:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-08 11:42 am (UTC)You're assuming that she's a Time Lord. Bearing in mind the alleged half-humanness of the Doctor himself, if he'd had a child by a human mother, would she be Gallifreyan enough to be detectable, by whatever means it is he detects actual Time Lords?
You may also be assuming that she's been present in this reality throughout the run.
Myself, I'm assuming she's not Miranda (even though that picture looks a fair match for Georgia Moffett), 'cos that would involve all sorts of copyright issues and more importantly a degree of tying the show into the BBC novel-verse that has previously been expressly (and wisely) forbidden. Even though I'd love it to be the right answer. =:o}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 03:16 pm (UTC)Anyway, I do have hope for the show's future; just not much for the show's present.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 06:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 10:41 pm (UTC)I do see what you mean by coasting; I'm not loving the plots this season for the most part. But I'm loving the character interactions. Rather a lot actually.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-07 10:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-08 11:48 am (UTC)